Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Secession and Dec. of Independence

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 6:50:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Please stop using the Declaration of Independence to defend Southern secession. It doesn't.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

A long train of compromises, pardons, and then the election of a man who they simply didn't want to be president (without knowledge of what he would do), does not qualify as a "long train of abuses and usurpations." Anticipation of harm does not qualify as abuse. An election is not grounds for secession. And Thomas Jefferson explicitly wanted to deter people like those southerns and modern libertarians that would misinterpret the American Revolution....that's why he wrote that "governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes". Moreover, excuse me for using the most prosaic line of the document, but it does say that all men are created equal and reserve the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Secession in the defense of subjugation, cannot really hide under secession in defense of freedom. What freedom is it defending? Freedom to subjugate?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 8:11:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 6:50:43 AM, 000ike wrote:
What freedom is it defending?

The freedom of self-governance, or rather more limited, direct governance.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 8:26:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 8:11:34 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 11/22/2012 6:50:43 AM, 000ike wrote:
What freedom is it defending?

The freedom of self-governance, or rather more limited, direct governance.

That reduces to anarchy, which, we can both agree, was not what the drafters' intended. Democracy has never been about self-governance or direct governance...otherwise the whole concept would collapse for failing miserably in that regard. It's been about the right of people to broadly hire and fire leaders based on performance and always give government a higher authority to answer to...the electorate. The Declaration of Independence was created for the establishment of democracy, and for the destruction of it when the system fails...not when the country democratically elects a man for president that they don't want, and then democratically compromises several regionally divisive issues.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 8:27:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 8:26:43 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2012 8:11:34 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 11/22/2012 6:50:43 AM, 000ike wrote:
What freedom is it defending?

The freedom of self-governance, or rather more limited, direct governance.

That reduces to anarchy, which, we can both agree, was not what the drafters' intended. Democracy has never been about self-governance or direct governance...otherwise the whole concept would collapse for failing miserably in that regard. It's been about the right of people to broadly hire and fire leaders based on performance and always give government a higher authority to answer to...the electorate. The Declaration of Independence was created for the establishment of democracy, and for the destruction of it when the system fails...not when the country democratically elects a man for president that the south doesn't want, and then democratically compromises several regionally divisive issues.

*fixed
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 10:29:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You can argue about whether the current state of affairs merits "a long train of abuses and usurpations" (I think it obviously does) but the DOI clearly supports at the very least the right to secede, if not every line of reasoning in defense of secession

Personally, I don't understand why conservatives are whining over Obama. It's not like the country is going to go in a totes terrible direction now. It's been going in that direction since before pre-Bush II. People should be able to secede, though the starting point of "Obama wining the 2012 election" is dumb reasoning though.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 10:32:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
*gets popcorn*
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 11:41:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 6:50:43 AM, 000ike wrote:
Please stop using the Declaration of Independence to defend Southern secession. It doesn't.


Yes it does. This country was founded on classic liberal principles. One of those revolutionary principles was the right to denounce citizenship. Individuals can renounce citizenship if they feel the government no longer represents them, groups of individuals (states, counties, cities) can secede when they feel the government no longer represents them, and the majority can alter or abolish the government when they feel it no longer represents them.

This is why 3/4 of the States can ratify amendments to the US government, and why States have referendums for their amendments.

This is why US citizens are allowed to renounce their citizenship, and foreigners are allowed to naturalize into the US. At the time we declared independence, you were not allowed to renounce citizenship. That is why the British impressed US sailors who immigrated from Britania in the 1800's.

" That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety... That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.... That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal... That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary." ~ Section 3 of the Constitution of Virginia, June 29, 1776

"All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good... All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness... When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void... Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." ~ Section 1 of the Constitution of New Hampshire, June 2, 1784

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

2 things. It says "Governments long established", which was not the case during the civil war. Secondly, Jefferson was not saying that people don't have the right to secede until it reaches absolute despotism, he was saying people should not take the decision to secede lightly.

and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

In other words; people should not ignore tyranny, just because they are use to it.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

In other words, if the government has constantly violated their rights to life, liberty, and property, than it is now not only their right to secede, but their duty to secede.

A long train of compromises, pardons, and then the election of a man who they simply didn't want to be president (without knowledge of what he would do), does not qualify as a "long train of abuses and usurpations."

That is your opinion. The south was pushing for secession since at-least the 1830's. They feared the central government was becoming too intrusive (and history proved them right).

Anticipation of harm does not qualify as abuse. An election is not grounds for secession.
An election may be grounds for secession under certain circumstances. The 1860 presidential election being a good example, as it demonstrated Northern supremacy over the south and west.

And Thomas Jefferson explicitly wanted to deter people like those southerns and modern libertarians that would misinterpret the American Revolution....
I think it's you who are misinterpreting things.
that's why he wrote that "governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes". Moreover, excuse me for using the most prosaic line of the document, but it does say that all men are created equal and reserve the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And when a state, country, or town feels the government is no longer protecting their right to life, liberty, or property, than they have a right to secede.

Secession in the defense of subjugation, cannot really hide under secession in defense of freedom. What freedom is it defending? Freedom to subjugate?
What do you mean by defense of subjugation? I don't think there was ever a secessionist movement using that as the basis of secession.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 2:23:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 11:41:52 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/22/2012 6:50:43 AM, 000ike wrote:
Please stop using the Declaration of Independence to defend Southern secession. It doesn't.


Yes it does. This country was founded on classic liberal principles. One of those revolutionary principles was the right to denounce citizenship. Individuals can renounce citizenship if they feel the government no longer represents them, groups of individuals (states, counties, cities) can secede when they feel the government no longer represents them, and the majority can alter or abolish the government when they feel it no longer represents them.

This is why 3/4 of the States can ratify amendments to the US government, and why States have referendums for their amendments.

This is why US citizens are allowed to renounce their citizenship, and foreigners are allowed to naturalize into the US. At the time we declared independence, you were not allowed to renounce citizenship. That is why the British impressed US sailors who immigrated from Britania in the 1800's.


" That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety... That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.... That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal... That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary." ~ Section 3 of the Constitution of Virginia, June 29, 1776

"All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good... All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness... When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void... Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." ~ Section 1 of the Constitution of New Hampshire, June 2, 1784


"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

2 things. It says "Governments long established", which was not the case during the civil war. Secondly, Jefferson was not saying that people don't have the right to secede until it reaches absolute despotism, he was saying people should not take the decision to secede lightly.

and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

In other words; people should not ignore tyranny, just because they are use to it.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

In other words, if the government has constantly violated their rights to life, liberty, and property, than it is now not only their right to secede, but their duty to secede.

A long train of compromises, pardons, and then the election of a man who they simply didn't want to be president (without knowledge of what he would do), does not qualify as a "long train of abuses and usurpations."

That is your opinion. The south was pushing for secession since at-least the 1830's. They feared the central government was becoming too intrusive (and history proved them right).

Anticipation of harm does not qualify as abuse. An election is not grounds for secession.
An election may be grounds for secession under certain circumstances. The 1860 presidential election being a good example, as it demonstrated Northern supremacy over the south and west.

And Thomas Jefferson explicitly wanted to deter people like those southerns and modern libertarians that would misinterpret the American Revolution....
I think it's you who are misinterpreting things.
that's why he wrote that "governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes". Moreover, excuse me for using the most prosaic line of the document, but it does say that all men are created equal and reserve the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And when a state, country, or town feels the government is no longer protecting their right to life, liberty, or property, than they have a right to secede.

Secession in the defense of subjugation, cannot really hide under secession in defense of freedom. What freedom is it defending? Freedom to subjugate?
What do you mean by defense of subjugation? I don't think there was ever a secessionist movement using that as the basis of secession.

Find a better way to consolidate your responses, because I'm not dealing with this mess.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 2:35:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 11:41:52 AM, DanT wrote:

What do you mean by defense of subjugation? I don't think there was ever a secessionist movement using that as the basis of secession.

Slavery.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 3:22:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 10:29:51 AM, socialpinko wrote:
You can argue about whether the current state of affairs merits "a long train of abuses and usurpations" (I think it obviously does) but the DOI clearly supports at the very least the right to secede, if not every line of reasoning in defense of secession

Personally, I don't understand why conservatives are whining over Obama. It's not like the country is going to go in a totes terrible direction now. It's been going in that direction since before pre-Bush II. People should be able to secede, though the starting point of "Obama wining the 2012 election" is dumb reasoning though.

I'm fairly certain that the DoI was designed in defense of democratic freedom....and can only be invoked in the absence or abridgment of democracy. When the government acts in a manner you disagree with, through the very democratic institution that the drafters created, you cannot go ahead and reference the drafters to sanction your state's secession. Your argument is way out of historical context.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 3:44:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 3:22:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2012 10:29:51 AM, socialpinko wrote:
You can argue about whether the current state of affairs merits "a long train of abuses and usurpations" (I think it obviously does) but the DOI clearly supports at the very least the right to secede, if not every line of reasoning in defense of secession

Personally, I don't understand why conservatives are whining over Obama. It's not like the country is going to go in a totes terrible direction now. It's been going in that direction since before pre-Bush II. People should be able to secede, though the starting point of "Obama wining the 2012 election" is dumb reasoning though.

I'm fairly certain that the DoI was designed in defense of democratic freedom....and can only be invoked in the absence or abridgment of democracy.

Lol you really should read DanT's response.

When the government acts in a manner you disagree with, through the very democratic institution that the drafters created, you cannot go ahead and reference the drafters to sanction your state's secession. Your argument is way out of historical context.

That's not what I did. Disagreeing with a policy seems to be a necessary condition to want secession but it's obviously by no means sufficient and that's no where near what I said. My point was that the conservative jump off of "Obama won" isn't sufficient but that doesn't mean sufficient conditions haven't already been fulfilled.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 3:55:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 3:44:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/22/2012 3:22:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2012 10:29:51 AM, socialpinko wrote:
You can argue about whether the current state of affairs merits "a long train of abuses and usurpations" (I think it obviously does) but the DOI clearly supports at the very least the right to secede, if not every line of reasoning in defense of secession

Personally, I don't understand why conservatives are whining over Obama. It's not like the country is going to go in a totes terrible direction now. It's been going in that direction since before pre-Bush II. People should be able to secede, though the starting point of "Obama wining the 2012 election" is dumb reasoning though.

I'm fairly certain that the DoI was designed in defense of democratic freedom....and can only be invoked in the absence or abridgment of democracy.

Lol you really should read DanT's response.

It was a quote from the DoI. I accept your concession though.

When the government acts in a manner you disagree with, through the very democratic institution that the drafters created, you cannot go ahead and reference the drafters to sanction your state's secession. Your argument is way out of historical context.

That's not what I did. Disagreeing with a policy seems to be a necessary condition to want secession but it's obviously by no means sufficient and that's no where near what I said. My point was that the conservative jump off of "Obama won" isn't sufficient but that doesn't mean sufficient conditions haven't already been fulfilled.

What in the world are you talking about? The argument here is about the justification of the 1861 act of mass secession in the South...secession in defense of slavery. Let's deal with that first.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 4:01:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 3:55:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2012 3:44:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Lol you really should read DanT's response.

It was a quote from the DoI. I accept your concession though.

Wasn't a concession and his post wasn't just a quote.

That's not what I did. Disagreeing with a policy seems to be a necessary condition to want secession but it's obviously by no means sufficient and that's no where near what I said. My point was that the conservative jump off of "Obama won" isn't sufficient but that doesn't mean sufficient conditions haven't already been fulfilled.

What in the world are you talking about? The argument here is about the justification of the 1861 act of mass secession in the South...secession in defense of slavery. Let's deal with that first.

I didn't realize that. Srry, on to 1861 secession though, the reasoning wasn't solely in defense of slavery or mere political disagreement so your argument is a strawmann. It was fear of the Fed. government centralizing and taking much more control over the country (which turned out to be exactly right lol) as well as (unjustified) fear of the Feds stopping slavery. The former reasoning is certainly justifiable by DOI standards for secession. I should say though this point is quite hallow since you wouldn't care since you think the Constitution prohibits it and I don't care because I think secession would be fine regardless of what the DOI or Constitution said. The South didn't secede only in defense of slavery even if it was tangled up in the states/federal government problem.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 4:12:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 4:01:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:

I didn't realize that. Srry, on to 1861 secession though, the reasoning wasn't solely in defense of slavery or mere political disagreement so your argument is a strawmann. It was fear of the Fed. government centralizing and taking much more control over the country (which turned out to be exactly right lol) as well as (unjustified) fear of the Feds stopping slavery. The former reasoning is certainly justifiable by DOI standards for secession. I should say though this point is quite hallow since you wouldn't care since you think the Constitution prohibits it and I don't care because I think secession would be fine regardless of what the DOI or Constitution said. The South didn't secede only in defense of slavery even if it was tangled up in the states/federal government problem.

Nope. Not only was slavery the principal cause of secession, but it was the final catalyst....with the election of a non-abolitionist Republican president who they feared would tamper with the sadistic institution. Other reasons, such as tariffs, were marginal in influence. Secession in defense of subjugation is not sanction by the DoI. And furthermore, baseless anticipation of political interference is a "light and transient" reason.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 4:32:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 4:12:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2012 4:01:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:

I didn't realize that. Srry, on to 1861 secession though, the reasoning wasn't solely in defense of slavery or mere political disagreement so your argument is a strawmann. It was fear of the Fed. government centralizing and taking much more control over the country (which turned out to be exactly right lol) as well as (unjustified) fear of the Feds stopping slavery. The former reasoning is certainly justifiable by DOI standards for secession. I should say though this point is quite hallow since you wouldn't care since you think the Constitution prohibits it and I don't care because I think secession would be fine regardless of what the DOI or Constitution said. The South didn't secede only in defense of slavery even if it was tangled up in the states/federal government problem.

Nope. Not only was slavery the principal cause of secession, but it was the final catalyst....with the election of a non-abolitionist Republican president who they feared would tamper with the sadistic institution. Other reasons, such as tariffs, were marginal in influence. Secession in defense of subjugation is not sanction by the DoI. And furthermore, baseless anticipation of political interference is a "light and transient" reason.

You should really read DanT's post.

At 11/22/2012 11:41:52 AM, DanT wrote:
....Jefferson was not saying that people don't have the right to secede until it reaches absolute despotism, he was saying people should not take the decision to secede lightly.

The Founders saw self-governance and secession as fundamental rights, however they didn't want people to just assume that it was always in their best interest to excercise it. The Founder's principles were overshadowed in some cases by caution. So fundamentally the criticism that Linoln's election wasn't enough is kind of moot.

But more specifically, even if we grant this premise your argument still falls apart since the election of Lincoln and defense of slavery didn't constitute the entirety of the Southern defense of secession in the first place.

Furthermore, the idea that tariffs were "marginal in influence" is wholly wrong. The tariffs issue largely hurt the Southern economies at the expense of the Northern and just as well highlighted the fact that the country was almost entirely sectionalist and at odds. See the nullification crisis rising out of the Tariff of '32. The result of this was that the S.Carolina legislature voted it void while Jackson ignored it, called out nullification itself as treason, and hinted at using violence to stop possible secession. Tariffs seem to be the embodiment of the sectional divide at the time.

Saying slavery was the route cause of secession is a dim explanation. Sectionalism is more plausible a route cause, finding it's expression incidentally in slavery while also in tariffs, states rights, and large regional differences not only economically but culturally. The common denominator is the geographical divide between the North and South. Slavery was merely a single (albeit historically over-stated) expression of this. You can't just say the South held slaves and thus the majority of their reasons for secession are moot.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 5:01:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 4:32:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
pontification. herp derp

You're essentially putting words in their mouths while intermittently inserting facts to make your argument seem less conjectural. If you would put down the anarchistic glasses for a moment and think in historical context, you'll see tariffs and nullification controversy were indeed marginal causes. Sectionalism was in fact the overarching issue,...but then again we can almost consider slavery and sectionalism historically synonymous, since the absence of one would mean the absence of the other.

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery"

"In the momentous step which our State [Mississippi] has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

"[from South Carolina] A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery." http://sunsite.utk.edu...

The word "tariff" wasn't even mentioned once in any of those total 4 documents of secession from the leading Confederate states of the Southern union.

To your point about the founders' intentions, you're wrong on that front as well....seeing as your argument invariably reduces to anarchy. The founding fathers, being clear statists, believed in a limit to what kind of and for what reasons secession would be justified in accordance with the philosophy they express in the DoI. They were inspired by thinkers such as Thomas Paine, who openly considered government a "necessary evil" for the leadership and guidance of the populace...but also in need of check and balance by the people to prevent despotism. So really the DoI was not an endorsement of the principle of secession in and of itself....but an endorsement of secession in the name of democracy. So really, as long as the government acts in accordance with democratic law,...the very democratic establishment those SAME men built, there can be no DoI sanctioned act of secession.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 6:07:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 5:01:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2012 4:32:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
pontification. herp derp

I thought I was being nice. Why the snappy comment?

You're essentially putting words in their mouths while intermittently inserting facts to make your argument seem less conjectural. If you would put down the anarchistic glasses for a moment and think in historical context, you'll see tariffs and nullification controversy were indeed marginal causes. Sectionalism was in fact the overarching issue,...but then again we can almost consider slavery and sectionalism historically synonymous, since the absence of one would mean the absence of the other.

Slavery and sectionalism clearly weren't synonymous since there were other considerations as a part of sectionalism like tariffs and federalism. Secondly, let's look at the reasons leading the South to favor slavery so fiercely. There's the fact that it was so historically dominant inSouthern culture, there's the fact that the Southern economies relied almost entirely upon it, there's the fact that the Southern political tradition almost unanimously favored federalism, etc. The idea that slavery was a dominant factor in Southern secession actually proves sectionalism as the dominant cause. Sectionalism caused the slaver shift as well as the tariff debate and the bringing light of federalism into the argument. The sectionalism explanation actually explains the reason why slavery was of the "importance" that it was to Southerners and has more explanatory power in explaining almost every other Soutern/Northern conflict leading up to the Civil War.

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery"

This isn't even unique to slavery qua slavery as the dominant issue. It's like Ron Paul disagreeing with Obama's drug policy. It's not that Obama thinks drugs should be illegal per se, but the fact that Obama thinks it should be the Federal as opposed to State government who have the right to do so. You didn't see the Southern states freaking out about Northern states simply ending slavery in their states. The Northern States were much more prone to favoring Federal right over the issue.

"In the momentous step which our State [Mississippi] has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

See above. They're saying slavery was important in their reasoning to leave but that doesn't preclude sectionalism in regards to federalism/anti-federalism as the dominant form of reasoning. See my point above regarding the superior explanatory power of sectionalism.

"[from South Carolina] A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery." http://sunsite.utk.edu...

See above.

The word "tariff" wasn't even mentioned once in any of those total 4 documents of secession from the leading Confederate states of the Southern union.

And the fact that S.Carolina almost wholesale seceded as a result of the tariff/nullification crisis in '32 probs doesn't mean anything. Also lol at precluding conflicting evidence by implying that "leading" States' reasons are the only ones that count. From the ordinance of secession from Alabama:

WHEREAS, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the Constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the northern section

...or Missouri...

Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof.....

...Or Kentucky...

Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society

The evidence clearly suggests that the more fundamental issue was sectionalism, and that slavery was but a manifestation of the problem.

To your point about the founders' intentions, you're wrong on that front as well....seeing as your argument invariably reduces to anarchy. The founding fathers, being clear statists, believed in a limit to what kind of and for what reasons secession would be justified in accordance with the philosophy they express in the DoI. They were inspired by thinkers such as Thomas Paine, who openly considered government a "necessary evil" for the leadership and guidance of the populace...but also in need of check and balance by the people to prevent despotism. So really the DoI was not an endorsement of the principle of secession in and of itself....but an endorsement of secession in the name of democracy. So really, as long as the government acts in accordance with democratic law,...the very democratic establishment those SAME men built, there can be no DoI sanctioned act of secession.

Your argument presupposes that the Founders thought process was itself entirely coherent. I don't think they were in light of the recent work making anarchism a workable political theory. Back when the U.S. was founded I think the only anarchists were William Godwin who was rather obscure and Burke's satirical "Vindication of Natural Society". In hindsight we see that the principle of secession leads to anarchism (logically) but at that time it wasn't even within their paradigm. Your argument should be "If the Founders were completely logical and had the level of knowledge we have today, then they wouldn't forward secession unless they were anarchists." These conditions were hardly filled though.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 7:02:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 2:35:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2012 11:41:52 AM, DanT wrote:

What do you mean by defense of subjugation? I don't think there was ever a secessionist movement using that as the basis of secession.

Slavery.

That is not why they seceded. Typical grade-school ignorance. That is the problem with public schools. The textbooks are written by the lowest bidder. I remember my highschool textbook claimed that Buddha was god, and that Buddhism was relate to Islam.

If you think the civil war, and secession was about slavery, challenge me to a debate. I'll wipe the floor with you.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 7:03:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 2:23:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2012 11:41:52 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/22/2012 6:50:43 AM, 000ike wrote:
Please stop using the Declaration of Independence to defend Southern secession. It doesn't.


Yes it does. This country was founded on classic liberal principles. One of those revolutionary principles was the right to denounce citizenship. Individuals can renounce citizenship if they feel the government no longer represents them, groups of individuals (states, counties, cities) can secede when they feel the government no longer represents them, and the majority can alter or abolish the government when they feel it no longer represents them.

This is why 3/4 of the States can ratify amendments to the US government, and why States have referendums for their amendments.

This is why US citizens are allowed to renounce their citizenship, and foreigners are allowed to naturalize into the US. At the time we declared independence, you were not allowed to renounce citizenship. That is why the British impressed US sailors who immigrated from Britania in the 1800's.


" That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety... That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.... That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal... That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary." ~ Section 3 of the Constitution of Virginia, June 29, 1776

"All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good... All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness... When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void... Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." ~ Section 1 of the Constitution of New Hampshire, June 2, 1784


"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

2 things. It says "Governments long established", which was not the case during the civil war. Secondly, Jefferson was not saying that people don't have the right to secede until it reaches absolute despotism, he was saying people should not take the decision to secede lightly.

and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

In other words; people should not ignore tyranny, just because they are use to it.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

In other words, if the government has constantly violated their rights to life, liberty, and property, than it is now not only their right to secede, but their duty to secede.

A long train of compromises, pardons, and then the election of a man who they simply didn't want to be president (without knowledge of what he would do), does not qualify as a "long train of abuses and usurpations."

That is your opinion. The south was pushing for secession since at-least the 1830's. They feared the central government was becoming too intrusive (and history proved them right).

Anticipation of harm does not qualify as abuse. An election is not grounds for secession.
An election may be grounds for secession under certain circumstances. The 1860 presidential election being a good example, as it demonstrated Northern supremacy over the south and west.

And Thomas Jefferson explicitly wanted to deter people like those southerns and modern libertarians that would misinterpret the American Revolution....
I think it's you who are misinterpreting things.
that's why he wrote that "governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes". Moreover, excuse me for using the most prosaic line of the document, but it does say that all men are created equal and reserve the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And when a state, country, or town feels the government is no longer protecting their right to life, liberty, or property, than they have a right to secede.

Secession in the defense of subjugation, cannot really hide under secession in defense of freedom. What freedom is it defending? Freedom to subjugate?
What do you mean by defense of subjugation? I don't think there was ever a secessionist movement using that as the basis of secession.

Find a better way to consolidate your responses, because I'm not dealing with this mess.

WTF are you talking about?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 7:06:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 7:02:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/22/2012 2:35:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2012 11:41:52 AM, DanT wrote:

What do you mean by defense of subjugation? I don't think there was ever a secessionist movement using that as the basis of secession.

Slavery.

That is not why they seceded. Typical grade-school ignorance. That is the problem with public schools. The textbooks are written by the lowest bidder. I remember my highschool textbook claimed that Buddha was god, and that Buddhism was relate to Islam.

If you think the civil war, and secession was about slavery, challenge me to a debate. I'll wipe the floor with you.

And FYI the government does not represent slaves, because slaves are not citizens. That is why the 14th amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It was to grant freed slaves representation.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle